Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rodriguez v. Wilson Industries

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

September 2, 2014

MARICELA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
WILSON INDUSTRIES; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; JACKSON-SAFETY; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants.

David Harford, Co-Counsel (admitted pro hac vice), Christopher P. Galanek, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Attorney for Defendant, KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge.

The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ("KCW"), came on for hearing before this Court, the Honorable Manuel L. Real, on August 4, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. After consideration of the parties' briefs and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff Maricela Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") worked as a production employee for Jackson Products, Inc. ("Jackson Products") at its facility in Pomona, California from August 2008 until her termination in February 2012.

2. In 2009, Kimberly-Clark Corporation acquired Jackson Products.

3. During her entire employment, Plaintiff received W-2s from Jackson Products.

4. KCW and Jackson Products are separate and distinct subsidiaries of Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

5. KCW never owned, operated, or managed the Pomona facility where Plaintiff worked.

6. When Plaintiff worked at the Pomona facility, she was a Jackson Products employee and never an employee of KCW.

7. Plaintiff's employment was terminated on or about February 18, 2012. The decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment was made by Jack Bourne, the operations manager of the Pomona facility, and human resources manager Joyce TenElshof, who were both employees of Jackson Products.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Summary judgment is proper where the record viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party shows that there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maddock v. KB Homes, Inc., 631 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1231-32 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Material facts are those necessary to the proof or defense of a claim and determined by substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying relevant portion of the record to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must produce evidence to support its claim or defense. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins the motion for summary judgment. Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000).

2. Under California and federal law, there is a strong presumption that a parent company is not the employer of its subsidiary's employees. Laird v. Capital ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.